Disconnecting from dysfunctional family members

Tigger said:
Well that's just your opinion. ;)

This opens quite a can of worms...
Is there an objective truth?
Can we know it?
Who is capable of deciding what is objectively "wrong"?
When is one informed enough?
Is it possible to have a valid opinion affirming the existence of devine beings that do not manifest themselves in any measurable way?
Click to expand...

"Paging Bishop Berkeley; Bishop Berkeley, please reify the white courtesy phone."
 
travelover said:
It does seem like a number of threads here have degraded into philosophical pi$$ing contests recently. :whistle:

Of course, that's just my opinion, too.
Click to expand...

This one has certainly taken a philosophical turn. Is that something you really find objectionable? Obviously some members are interested, or there would not be "a number" of threads that veer off in that direction.

Maybe there ought to be a separate forum for philosophical topics. Then those members who dislike such topics could put the whole thing on "ignore".
 
Martha said:
I still maintain that morality is a social construct and our sense of morality likely evolved along with us. There certainly are tensions between peoples, especially when resources are scarce. I did not mean to imply that we are naturally "good" nor do I believe we are naturally "bad." I acknowledge that my post was way over simplified. My only point is that I do not believe in a god given kind of morality. I am not surprised by the ugly things people do. But I am also not surprised by the good people do.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. But what I don't exactly understand is if "morality is a social construct" (agree!), how could it "evolve along with us". Evolution is biological, and social constructs are by definition social. The Russian Lamarck posited that communist social development would be incorporated into biological evolution, but I don't believe anyone other than Marxists believed this, and Marxists may no longer believe it either.

At any rate, it seems overwhelming that moral conduct is fostered or enforced by social factors, including training that tends to be incorporated into most people, so that as you mention they get very nevous when they are being deviant. But this easily breaks down when the social pressure is varied- for example Germany during the holocaust, or even the notorious experiments of Philip Zimbardo which demonstrated how easy it can be to get so called moral people to do things that are quite outside of the normal rules of behavior.
The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment


Ha
 
Martha said:
I still maintain that morality is a social construct and our sense of morality likely evolved along with us. There certainly are tensions between peoples, especially when resources are scarce. I did not mean to imply that we are naturally "good" nor do I believe we are naturally "bad." I acknowledge that my post was way over simplified. My only point is that I do not believe in a god given kind of morality. I am not surprised by the ugly things people do. But I am also not surprised by the good people do.We may not disagree as much as it appears on the surface.

Social behaviors are complicated, with many factors effecting how people behave. But you can see precursors to human morality in social animals. Chimps who go against the norm in their group exhibit fear. Plenty of animals exhibit altuistic behavior. (Food sharing, dolphins rescuing drowning animals from other species, dogs adopting orphaned animals. . . ) And animals cheat and hide bad behavior from others in their social groups just like we do.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but no we disagree completely . You are artificially imposing a human concept (altruism) on a non human animal and then ascribing the action to another human concept. That is was evolutionary biologists call a "just so" story aka the ad hoc fallacy. We cannot even ascribe altruism or cheating or bad behavior to human behaviors in cultures that are totally foreign to us.

More importantly ascribing behavior to evolution is fraught with its own dangers. Lions hunt in prides. Was that evolved or learned? Is it passed on by genes or by cubs learning from elders? I've watched Cheetah mothers "teach" cheeta cubs by attacking baby warthogs. Cheetah can't eat warthog but the young are just right as training dummies. No Warthogs, they use something else.

We can "select" animals for various qualities that we think of as behaviors by breeding but those qualities have to be there in the first place. sled dogs and race horses did not evolve those behaviors.
We found that a few horses like to race and we selected for that characteristic, just like we bred for big or docile or black or whatever.

So please, Culture is more than adequate to explain all the complex human behaviors. We have very big brains and we use them. Humans have spread all over the world in a time period far too short to allow the kind of evolution you suggest.
 
kyounge1956 said:
Maybe there ought to be a separate forum for philosophical topics. Then those members who dislike such topics could put the whole thing on "ignore".
Click to expand...
Hey hey hey, that's what led to the creation of the "Soapbox" forum. Let's not go there again.

The issue with a public forum (which everyone would hypothetically be free to ignore) is that the moderators still have to rope in the controversial miscreants. This tension/frustration tends to spill over to the regular board and drags down the whole ambiance.

The solution is to set up a social group (open or invitation-only) where like-minded posters can philosophize to their heart's content without attracting undue troll attention.
 
kyounge1956 said:
This one has certainly taken a philosophical turn. Is that something you really find objectionable? Obviously some members are interested, or there would not be "a number" of threads that veer off in that direction.

Maybe there ought to be a separate forum for philosophical topics. Then those members who dislike such topics could put the whole thing on "ignore".
Click to expand...

Perhaps the problem is my own pragmatism. When I compare the thread title and the intent of the OP to the latest post and cannot find a strong connection, I find it annoying. And, no, I am not going to get into a pi$$ing contest with anyone over the validity of my annoyance.

End of rant. :LOL:
 
haha said:
LOL! I agree 100% with everything you have said here, the quoted part being only the most salient. I would say that it is almost being legislated and judicated into our culture that there are no legitimate discrimations. To discriminate is to harbor prejudice, according to today's ethos.

In fact this is ridiculous. The way any system improves its functioning is to to high-grade. To high grade, a system or society must be able to make discriminations between what is better and what is worse. Once a system stops this process, progress stops and like the USA today we descend into a free-for-all of idiocy, with every part of our culture reaching for the bottom, and in America the bottom is pretty low.

Ha
Click to expand...

Always enjoy your posts! I couldn't agree with you more. A recent example that comes to mind is the embrace of Eminem after he emerged from a drug induced stupor. Instead of society shouting from the mountain tops that this guy is no role model and him and his music should be rejected instead the networks promoted his "redemption" tour. I am truely afraid of the direction this society is taking - every opinion is valid; let's not judge others - pure idiocy. I don't buy in to that one bit and I do teach my children to be discerning. There are some things that should never be promoted in society because of the impact it has on the young and impressionable. I do believe some of us do know better.
 
Emeritus said:
I'm sorry but no we disagree completely . You are artificially imposing a human concept (altruism) on a non human animal and then ascribing the action to another human concept. That is was evolutionary biologists call a "just so" story aka the ad hoc fallacy. We cannot even ascribe altruism or cheating or bad behavior to human behaviors in cultures that are totally foreign to us.

More importantly ascribing behavior to evolution is fraught with its own dangers. Lions hunt in prides. Was that evolved or learned? Is it passed on by genes or by cubs learning from elders? I've watched Cheetah mothers "teach" cheeta cubs by attacking baby warthogs. Cheetah can't eat warthog but the young are just right as training dummies. No Warthogs, they use something else.

We can "select" animals for various qualities that we think of as behaviors by breeding but those qualities have to be there in the first place. sled dogs and race horses did not evolve those behaviors.
We found that a few horses like to race and we selected for that characteristic, just like we bred for big or docile or black or whatever.

So please, Culture is more than adequate to explain all the complex human behaviors. We have very big brains and we use them. Humans have spread all over the world in a time period far too short to allow the kind of evolution you suggest.
Click to expand...


I clearly am not communicating very well with you and Ha and maybe we are just having a nature/nuture argument and I don't see lines between nature and nuture.

We evolved to be social animals. I am not engaging in sentimental anthropomorphizing to say that non-human animals exhibit behaviors that bear some similarity to human social behaviors. Yes, animals exhibit altruistic type behaviors. Yes animals exhibit cheating behaviors. Yes animals exhibit emotional responses, such as fear to even sympathy. All species that rely on cooperation show loyalty and helping behaviors. It is interesting to see the capacity of animals for what humans have categorized as "good" or as "bad." I do not know the extent that apes or other social animals have a theory of the mind, where they can imagine what goes on in each others heads. (Though I know there is a bunch of research on the issue). I will say that I do not believe that we are different in a metaphysical sense from other animals. There is continuity with animals. So, the term anthropomorphism becomes meaningless. We evolved a bigger, more powerful brain, with a well developed theory of the mind. Even babies of a year old exhibit evidence of empathy. Our capacity for empathy and for learning, mixed with our drive to survive has allowed us to develop complicated moral codes and differentiating cultures. Our culture then shapes how we express our nature. We learn because we evolved to learn. We often adapt to changing circumstances because we are so good at learning.



Darwin said way back in 1872:

An animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as is intellectual powers had become well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man.




We aren't part nature, part nurture, but one big integrated whole. It is one big old messy spot in the evolution of man.
 
Last edited:
travelover said:
Perhaps the problem is my own pragmatism. When I compare the thread title and the intent of the OP to the latest post and cannot find a strong connection, I find it annoying. And, no, I am not going to get into a pi$$ing contest with anyone over the validity of my annoyance.

End of rant. :LOL:
Click to expand...

Our forum members are masters of floating off topic. Just like real life conversation. You start at one place and end at another.
 
REWahoo said:
I wonder if the railroad forum stays on track...
Click to expand...
You'd think that this forum's members would have to be pretty functional to post here, too.

Maybe we're evolving in a different direction or suffering from malnurturation...
 
haha said:
What great thread. It's like volleyball.

That train thing you describe reminds me of Ham Radio. Lord Have Mercy, and deliver us from boredom, Amen.

Ha
Click to expand...

I am amused at my shock over someone having more than 12,000 posts. Now I sit here with more than 12,000 posts.
 
haha said:
What great thread. It's like volleyball.

That train thing you describe reminds me of Ham Radio. Lord Have Mercy, and deliver us from boredom, Amen.

Ha
Click to expand...

My DH is a Ham Radio enthusiast. Coolest nerds on the planet, IMHO;)

He loves stuff like this....:smitten:

 
Purron said:
My DH is a Ham Radio enthusiast. Coolest nerds on the planet, IMHO;)

He loves stuff like this....:smitten:
Click to expand...

Purron, I think it is wonderful how many different types of people there are, and for every type there is enjoyment and satisfaction to be found.

Ha
 
haha said:
Purron, I think it is wonderful how many different types of people there are, and for every type there is enjoyment and satisfaction to be found.

Ha
Click to expand...

Thanks. I just wish he could dance. Most hams are not so good at that;)
 
bbbamI said:
Mmmmm...this quote sure brings us close to...dare I say...bacon...

:flowers:
Click to expand...


OK - dancing, Bacon, well dang - this thread's already been derailed so whatever...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Do you have family reunions?
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
Rianne
Rianne
Midpack
  • Poll
Poll: How Often Have You Had A Flat Tire?
3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
2K
Redbugdave
Redbugdave
F
Traumatic events were my blessing
Replies
15
Views
600
Koolau
Koolau
Moparguy392
Guess I've been told...
Replies
2
Views
391
Car-Guy
Car-Guy
Teacher Terry
Stolen License Plate
2
Replies
38
Views
895
Jerry1
Jerry1

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom